[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[B. Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes]
[Â§ 21. Increasing Amount Beyond Authorization]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5586-5591]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
              B. APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSES
 
Sec. 21. Increasing Amount Beyond Authorization

Generally

Sec. 21.1 An amendment proposing to appropriate a sum in addition to 
    that authorized by law for a specific purpose is not in order on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 12, 1942,(19) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6709, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
During consideration, a point of order against an amendment was 
sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 88 Cong. Rec. 2346, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Voorhis of California: Page 79, 
        line 11, after the period, add the following paragraph:
            ``To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to further carry 
        out the provisions of section 32, as amended, of the act 
        entitled `An act to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and 
        for other purposes,' approved August 24, 1935, and subject to 
        all provisions of law relating to the expenditure of funds 
        appropriated by such section, $40,000,000. Such sum shall be 
        immediately available and shall be in addition to, and not in 
        substitution for, other appropriations made by such section or 
        for the purpose of such section.''

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California on the ground that there is no authority of law for 
    making an appropriation in addition to the permanent appropriation 
    made by section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. There is no 
    legislative basis for the amendment which the gentleman offers.
        The Chairman: (20) Does the gentleman from 
    California wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Voorhis of California: No, Mr. Chairman; I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Increase in Lump Sum Beyond Authorization

Sec. 21.2 An amendment proposing an increase in the amount of an 
    appropriation authorized by law was held to be unauthorized: to the 
    appropriation for compensation of Members of the House, an 
    amendment proposing to increase the total amount beyond that 
    authorized was held to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

[[Page 5587]]

    On Apr. 19, 1950,(1) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7786), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 5392, 5393, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Chapter II, Legislative Branch

        The Clerk read as follows:

            For compensation of Members of the House of 
        Representatives, Delegates from Territories, and the Resident 
        Commissioner from Puerto Rico, $5,492,500. . . .

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: Page 3, line 6, strike out 
        ``$5,492,500'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$7,135,000.''

        Mr. [Christopher C.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the amendment that there is no 
    authority in law for this increase.
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Multer] desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer: No; I do not care to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer] cite 
    any authorization of law for the increase proposed by his 
    amendment?
        Mr. Multer: Only the fact that this body has the authority to 
    fix the salary of its Members. I think it does not matter how or in 
    what bill the House does it. It may do so as part of an 
    appropriation bill. This item being the item appropriating for the 
    pay of Members of Congress I think it is subject to amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. McGrath] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that the Members 
    of the House are deserving of an increase in compensation, yet my 
    position at this time is of a legislative capacity and I must 
    support the rules of the House.
        I respectfully submit that the point of order lies against the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman from New York yield for a question?
        Mr. McGrath: I yield.
        Mr. Taber: As I understand, this is an amendment to the gross 
    amount for salaries. It is not in order, of course, because the 
    only authority we have is to appropriate an amount equivalent to 
    the product of the fixed salary times the number of Members. The 
    effect of the amendment would not even be to increase the salary.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer] has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported; the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    McGrath] has made a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground that the amount sought to be included by the amendment is 
    not authorized by law.
        The Chair has examined the question to some extent, and it 
    appears that the amount carried in the bill re

[[Page 5588]]

    flects the amount authorized by existing law. Therefore, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would be in excess 
    of existing authority of law.
        The point of order is sustained.

Where Part of Lump Sum is Unauthorized

Sec. 21.3 Instance where a point of order was conceded against a 
    paragraph of an appropriation bill on the ground that a lump-sum 
    figure therein included funds for one organization in excess of the 
    authorization therefor even though all funds in the lump sum were 
    to be available only as authorized by law.

    On Apr. 12, 1960,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11666, an appropriation for the Departments of State, 
Justice, and the Judiciary. At one point the Clerk read as follows, and 
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Missions to International Organizations

        For expenses necessary for permanent representation to certain 
    international organizations in which the United States participates 
    pursuant to treaties, conventions, or specific acts of Congress, 
    including expenses authorized by the pertinent acts and conventions 
    providing for such representation; salaries, expenses, and 
    allowances of personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign 
    Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 801-1158); hire of 
    passenger motor vehicles; printing and binding, without regard to 
    section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U.S.C. 111); and 
    purchase of uniforms for guards and chauffeurs; $1,850,000.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 7 beginning with line 1 and 
    running through line 12 on the ground that it contains an 
    appropriation not authorized by law. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is 
    going to be a great deal of tweedledee and tweedledum. It is the 
    fact, and we concede, that the Interparliamentary Union, which has 
    been in existence for some 70-odd years, does not have an 
    authorization for expenditure beyond $15,000 per annum, whereas the 
    newly created NATO Interparliamentary Union and the Canadian 
    Interparliamentary Union have authorizations for $30,000. The 
    committee felt that the oldest one, the 70-year-old one, should be 
    put on the same basis as the two lately formed ones, and for that 
    reason inserted in the bill $30,000.
        Mr. Chairman, I am now constrained to concede that the point of 
    order is

[[Page 5589]]

    well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the bill specified that 
        appropriations in the paragraph were available only for 
        ``expenses authorized by the pertinent acts'' providing for 
        United States participation in the organizations. Under a 
        ruling of the Chair on June 18, 1960 (106 Cong. Rec. 11646, 
        86th Cong. 2d Sess.) and similar precedents, the quoted 
        language arguably would have limited the amount which could be 
        used to the amount actually authorized, in which case the point 
        of order would not have lain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Funds Above Authorized Level

Sec. 21.4 A provision in an appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures 
    in excess of the amount authorized by law was ruled out as in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(6) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 10723), a point of order was raised against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 7636, 7637, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal 
                                  Expenditures

            For an amount to enable the Joint Committee on Reduction of 
        Nonessential Federal Expenditures to carry out the duties 
        imposed upon it by section 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941 (55 
        Stat. 726), to remain available during the existence of the 
        Committee, $29,750, to be disbursed by the Secretary of State.

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language relating to the Joint Committee on 
    Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures which appears on 
    page 9, line 15 through line 2 on page 10, inclusive. There is no 
    authority in the basic law to appropriate such an amount. The joint 
    committee was established by the provisions of section 601 of the 
    Revenue Act of 1941 and appears in volume 55 of the Statutes at 
    Large, on page 726. Subsection (e) of section 601 limits the total 
    appropriations that can be made to this joint committee to the sum 
    of $10,000, or less, and I will quote the subsection as follows:

            There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, the sum of 
        $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to carry out 
        the provisions of this section.

        This joint committee was clearly intended to be a temporary 
    thing of short duration. As a matter of fact, it has not been 
    carried into the United States Code although that is not a matter 
    of great importance to this question, even though it indicates that 
    in the eyes of the people who prepare the code it was to be a 
    temporary thing. I trust that the Chair will sustain the point of 
    order which I have made. . . .

[[Page 5590]]

        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    concede the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman. 
    We have no other point to stand on except the fact that this has 
    been done for many years without protest. If that does not give it 
    life and legality, I know of no way that would give it life and 
    legality as of this moment. I certainly cannot with any logic offer 
    a substitute of only $10,000. That is so far from the realities of 
    the moment that I will just have to let it pass for the moment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Inasmuch as the authorization is for $10,000 and the 
    appropriation is for considerably more than that, the Chair 
    believes the point of order is well taken.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 21.5 Language in a general appropriation bill providing funds for 
    the Joint Committee on Defense Production in excess of the amount 
    authorized by law was conceded to be subject to a point of order.

    On Apr. 10, 1964,(8) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the legislative branch appropriation bill 
(H.R. 10723), a point of order was sustained against the following 
provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 7640, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows--page 10, line 21:

                     Joint Committee on Defense Production

            For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on Defense 
        Production as authorized by the Defense Production Act of 1950, 
        as amended, $90,520.

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the paragraph relating to the Joint Committee on 
    Defense Production which appears on page 10, lines 21 to 24, 
    inclusive, on the grounds that the amount proposed to be 
    appropriated, $90,520, exceeds the amount that is authorized to be 
    appropriated in the basic law. In title 50 of the United States 
    Code, section 2162(e), authorization for this committee is limited 
    to not to exceed $65,000 in any fiscal year, and I quote subsection 
    (e) as follows:

            The expenses of the committee under this section, which 
        shall not exceed $65,000 in any fiscal year, shall be paid from 
        the contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon 
        vouchers signed by the chairman or vice chairman.

        In view of this limitation, the proposed appropriation in the 
    pending bill is, in my opinion, clearly subject to a point of order 
    and I trust the Chair will so rule.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I would have 
    to concede the point of order. The only way I know to meet this 
    situation is to offer an amendment at this point.
        The Chairman: Did I understand correctly that the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma concedes the point of order?.

[[Page 5591]]

        Mr. Steed: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.